Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 May;90(5):493-506.
doi: 10.1002/JPER.18-0338. Epub 2018 Dec 5.

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Seyed Hossein Bassir  1   2 , Karim El Kholy  1   3   4 , Chia-Yu Chen  1 , Kyu Ha Lee  5   6 , Giuseppe Intini  7   8   9
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Seyed Hossein Bassir et al. J Periodontol. 2019 May.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols.

Methods: An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables).

Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables.

Conclusions: The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.

Keywords: clinical protocols; dental implantation/methods; dental implants; meta-analysis; time factors; tooth extraction; tooth socket/surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURES

All authors have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1-
Figure 1-
Study selection flow diagram.
Figure 2-
Figure 2-
Forest plots for the comparison of the risk of implant failure. (A) Early implant placement protocol vs. immediate placement protocol; (B) Early implant placement protocol vs. delayed placement protocol.
Figure 2-
Figure 2-
Forest plots for the comparison of the risk of implant failure. (A) Early implant placement protocol vs. immediate placement protocol; (B) Early implant placement protocol vs. delayed placement protocol.
Figure 3-
Figure 3-
Forest plots for the comparison of the changes in peri-implant marginal bone level. (A) Early implant placement protocol vs. immediate placement protocol; (B) Early implant placement protocol vs. delayed placement protocol.
Figure 3-
Figure 3-
Forest plots for the comparison of the changes in peri-implant marginal bone level. (A) Early implant placement protocol vs. immediate placement protocol; (B) Early implant placement protocol vs. delayed placement protocol.
Figure 4-
Figure 4-
(A) Forest plot for the comparison of the changes in peri-implant probing depth between early and immediate placement protocols. (B) Forest plot for the comparison of the changes in peri-implant mid-buccal soft tissue recession between early and immediate placement protocols.
Figure 4-
Figure 4-
(A) Forest plot for the comparison of the changes in peri-implant probing depth between early and immediate placement protocols. (B) Forest plot for the comparison of the changes in peri-implant mid-buccal soft tissue recession between early and immediate placement protocols.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Derks J, Hakansson J, Wennstrom JL, Tomasi C, Larsson M, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss. J Dent Res 2015;94:44S–51S. - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Boever AL, Quirynen M, Coucke W, Theuniers G, De Boever JA. Clinical and radiographic study of implant treatment outcome in periodontally susceptible and non-susceptible patients: a prospective long-term study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1341–1350. - PubMed
    1. Brnemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration In: Brnemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, Rosen HM. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company, Inc; 1985:11–76.
    1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387–416. - PubMed
    1. Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:645–652. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances